Case LawHigh Court › Wp/123/2023 Of Kilitch Drugs India Limit...

Wp/123/2023 Of Kilitch Drugs India Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(2)(1)

High Court 27 Apr 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/123/2023 Of Kilitch Drugs India Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(2)(1)
Date of order
27 Apr 2023
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Wp/123/2023 Of Kilitch Drugs India Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(2)(1), the High Court (2023) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.123 OF 2023 Kilitch Drugs India Limited v/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward15(2)(1), Mumbai and Ors. .. Petitioner .. Respondents … Mr. K. Gopal a/w. Mr. Jitendra Singh for petitioner.Mr. Suresh Kumar for the respondents. … CORAM : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ. DATED : 27TH APRIL 2023. P.C. : .Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that an amount ofRs.1.34 crores which was due and payable as refund for the AssessmentYear 2012-13 was paid as late as on 12th August 2022. It is stated thatthis amount should have normally been paid along with the interest as per the statutory provisions contained in Section 244A which has notbeen paid till date. 2.Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue on the other hand 1/2 states that there was no request or representation made by the petitionerfor payment of such interest and therefore, unless such a representationis made, interest could not have been paid. We do not agree with thisargument advanced by learned counsel for the revenue. The obligationto pay interest arises in terms of Section 244A and notwithstanding thefact that there was no specific representation made in that regard,would make no difference to the claim of the petitioner. Even otherwise,it can be seen from the record that the petitioner had addressed acommunication dated 18th December 2013 seeking the payment ofrefund amount along with interest and yet again on 24th February 2020when payment for interest along with the refund was claimed. Theclaim of the petitioner for interest thus cannot be denied. 3.We dispose of the petition with the consent of learned counsel forthe parties with a direction to the respondents to determine the interestpayable on the amount of refund, which was withheld, strictly in termsof the provisions of the Act. Payment, if any, be paid within threemonths from today. (KAMAL KHATA, J.) (DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan